Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
gave his life a ransom number on Calvary.
On Mount Calvary, Cruel Calvary.
We welcome you to the Florida School of Preaching Harvester podcast.
I am the host, Brian Kenyon, with my co-host, Stephen Ford, and we have a special guest
today, George and Forrest Animas-Harris, whose wife just had a baby, is not able to be
with us today, but he will join us very soon.
And we continue to look forward to that and continue to pray for his safe and well-being
of his family.
We've been giving last few
episodes here.
is episode six of season one and we're talking overall about unity and in this three-part
podcast we'll conclude it today or maybe we'll spin off to another one.
We'll wait and see how goes.
But we want to remind us of where we were on this.
We've talked about all actions that we can do biblically fall into one of three
categories.
Either they are biblical prohibitions
biblical requirements or biblical options.
And in those three, properly understanding those three are key to, number one, doing what
God wants us to do, having fellowship with God, but also having fellowship with one
another.
Now we talked about theological liberalism, which actually is taking biblical prohibitions
or biblical requirements and making them as if they are optional.
For example, the scripture says that we must worship God in spirit and in truth, and they
might take that to mean in spirit or in truth.
And so they make an obligatory requirement an option.
We also talked about, for lack of better terminology, anti-ism, which takes biblical
options and makes them either prohibitions or requirements.
For example, eating in a church building is an option that even in the New Testament
people ate meals in places where they worshiped and preached the gospel, but yet it was
approved.
But they would take that option and make it a prohibition.
You cannot do that.
And so we want to talk about then solutions today.
How can we solve these problems that arise from misapplying biblical prohibition, biblical
requirements?
and or biblical options.
And so George, lead us off on solutions to this problem.
Well, I would say that there are several Bible teachings to point out as antidotes to this
miscategorization of biblical actions.
One of them is to want the truth.
And this is an interesting passage in and of itself, worthy of perhaps expanding, but
whether or not you want to do this, we'll see how it goes.
Second Thessalonians 2 verses 10 to 12.
teaches that God, that if we do not want the truth, if we don't desire the truth, that God
himself is capable of providing us with a deluding influence so that we might believe a
lie.
It actually says words along those lines.
Second Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 10, and with all unrighteous deception among those
who perish,
because they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved.
for this reason, verse 11, reading from the New King James, and for this reason, God will
send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie that they all may be condemned
who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
So one way of solving division, unscriptural division in the Lord's church surely would be
this principle that is each of us should want the truth.
Otherwise we run the risk of the danger specified there in 2 Thessalonians 2, 10 to 12.
Secondly, be diligent, this is 2 Timothy 2, 15, be diligent rightly dividing God's Word.
Now surely the proper categorization of an action, that is categorizing an action
in which we could engage today as either a requirement and a prohibition or a option is an
implementation.
Wouldn't we agree that this is one of the implementations of 2nd Timothy 2.15, that we
rightly divide God's Word?
There are other implementations of that too.
For example, rightly distinguishing between the old covenant legislation and the new
covenant legislation.
rightly dividing meanings of words, for example, and giving attention to their meaning in
a particular context.
All of these are ways of carrying out 2 Timothy 2.15.
That's another antidote.
And a third antidote to unscriptural division in the Lord's Church is expressed in
Ephesians 4, verse 3, giving attention to being diligent to maintain biblical unity.
It's interesting that the term diligent, be diligent in Ephesians 4.3 in the New King
James, and be diligent in the New King James in 2 Timothy 2.15 come from the same Greek
word.
So evidently the Lord wants us to be as diligent in maintaining biblical unity as it is,
as it wants us to be diligent in rightly dividing the word of God.
I just wanted to kind of move back just a second.
Where you start off, think is a great point.
The first one as an antidote, really wanting the truth and you cited on 2nd Thessalonians.
I think that goes right into harmony with Romans chapter 1, speaking of those who hold or
rest the truth and unrighteousness.
Those that are trying to hold back that which is good and true in the face of that which
is evident to them.
And it says later on in that passage in verse number 26, for this cause God gave them up
to their vines
affections and later on verse 28 and even as they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not
convenient and so if we are not desirous of doing that which is good and true God will let
us have holy that which we are really seeking after and and to our detriment the
consequence
of those actions.
So we have to have the heart that wants to do good, that's seeking after, which is good as
Jesus would call it, hungering and thirsting after righteousness.
Yes, and I often think of this passage when I think along those terms too, along with
Romans, as in John 7-17, if anyone wills, and the word will there is the idea of desires,
wants to, if anyone wills to do his will, God's will, he shall know concerning the
doctrine whether it is from God or whether I speak on my own authority.
And I realize he's, you know, talking about Pharisees and things like that, perhaps in
this context, but I think that's
That's true.
mean, how often have we studied with people that the truth is clearly there, but they just
don't want to see it.
They just don't want to because they don't really want to do it comes out later.
They don't really want to do what God says.
They want to do their own will.
And I think that that desire.
of wanting to do what's right in God, wanting to follow him, will cause us to want to
rightly divide the Word.
It will cause us to want to make sure that we have the right kind of mind when we approach
a study of the Scripture.
And we want to make sure that apply that to ourselves, each of us individually, that if we
don't have a love for the truth, then we run these risks of God giving us our own way.
Of course, our own way would have consequences that we would not be happy with in the
afterlife.
So...
These are important teachings.
Note the antidote then is our choice to want the truth.
And that is how we avoid that risk.
A fourth antidote that I would like to point out is realizing that switching in action
from the category where the Bible has placed it to one or the other two.
itself is a sin.
see this in Isaiah 520 for example.
This says, woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and
light for darkness.
And then Proverbs 17 verse 5, he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just,
both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.
And then of course the principle in Revelation 22, 18 to 19, do not add to a takeaway from
God's word.
So it's helpful, I believe, to keep these antidotes in mind.
That is, there are different attitudes that we could have in mind and embrace.
as we look at, as we study the Bible and conform our wishes to the Bible and not try to
conform the Bible to our wishes.
Yes, and that's a good point.
like to interject this here is that, you know, division, mean, unity, unity, and we
studied this in the first couple episodes of this season that has to be, has to be, it's
impossible for to be any other way.
It has to be based on God's Word, God's will.
There's just no other way.
And so we have to approach
The study of the Bible is not my will, but your will be done.
But too many people, and you see this in division, too many people who are divided, they
want it their way, my way, not the Bible way, and they won't look at the passages and
rightly divide them as we have to in order to have the true unity with the Father, the
Son, the Holy Spirit, as well as one another.
Right, and we want to make sure that they are not liars.
that is very correct.
Absolutely.
Let me add this too that when we, as you were kind of getting to George, if we put an
item, an action into a box that it does not belong in, that's not just a subjective.
It's not just, well, you know, there's a lot of people think that being gracious now.
Well, we want to do grace.
You know, if I put this prohibition in option, then I'm being gracious.
If we look at the passage that were cited earlier, especially Isaiah five,
you know, woe unto you.
Now you look, and anytime that the Bible is pronouncing a woe, and it's never a
commendation or an exhortation of sorts to let people know there's something good.
And also, what it does is it says that God doesn't know what's best.
Because if I'm gonna change something, put it into a different category, then I'm...
presuming that I know better than God and as you cited Proverbs 30, if every word of God
is pure, if everything that issues from God, what is this, Psalm 119, things like 172 in
there, is righteousness, well then what am I saying about God's word if I change what he
says and put it in the category which it does not belong?
Yeah, that's a point.
think that would be a violation also of John 717 if anyone wants to do as well.
If we want to do as well, then we'll leave his will alone and conform ourselves to it.
Like George said, we have to conform ourselves to it, not it to our will.
And of course all of this presupposes that what we're reading here is indeed the Word of
God, which gives rise to the need and the importance of Christian apologetics.
Do we know that God exists?
Do we know that the Bible is the word of God?
What's the evidence for this?
A wonderful study in and of itself, all preceding, logically preceding, we're assuming
that the Bible is the word of God, but we can demonstrate that it has characteristics of
such a nature that there's no way that this book can be explained, its existence, without
the intelligence of God behind the scenes.
Yes, very good.
And we mentioned that a couple episodes ago and we will delve into that quite deeply and
in the future.
So now let us look at another biblical antidote to some of the division that can occur and
has occurred among professed Christians.
And this one has not been clearly understood, or if it has been, at least has not been
consistently applied.
That is, there is a way that the Bible indicates an action is an option.
that needs to be understood and applied, understood more clearly, and I alluded to it
previously.
Let's take the time to state this principle precisely, prove that it is true, and then
give some examples, if I may.
So understanding this principle of Bible interpretation and acting on it can help brothers
and sisters in Christ come together.
It can clear up some matters where there has been
and is division.
Let me state the principle precisely.
Every word in this statement is intended.
A generic requirement authorizes all specifics that carry it out, except any of those
specifics that the Bible excludes.
We can illustrate this in graphic form.
If you draw a and call that box a generic requirement,
and maybe put a little umbrella beside it in your mind, and then a downward arrow pointing
to specific A, specific B, specific C, dot dot dot, specific N.
These specifics are carrying out the generic principle.
a generic requirement.
We call it a generic requirement.
That's accurate because what we're talking about here are requirements, not prohibitions
or options.
They are requirements and they are generic in the sense that they are above specifics
below that carry them out.
For example, take the Great Commission, the Matthew 20 to 18 to 20, Mark 16, 15 to 16.
teaching says that in essence, go, go into all the world and preach the gospel.
But it does not specify the different ways that this could be done.
Well, we're left on our own, it's a matter of judgment in carrying this out.
So we could go by specific A, say an automobile.
You could go by ship, specific B.
Each of these is covered, that is, is authorized
by the hierarchy of generics and specifics.
The hierarchy of a generic over specific.
So the generic requirement of GO in the Great Commission authorizes in and of itself the
specifics that carry it out.
You could go by jet plane, for example.
But you cannot go by a stolen automobile.
Why?
Well, because that specific is canceled out, is denied, is excluded by Ephesians 4.28, for
example, which says, not steal.
But if the Bible does not exclude a specific that carries out a generic requirement, then
the generic requirement itself provides authority for that specific.
Here is a sound argument that I would offer that proves that this principle of Bible
interpretation is true.
Just think of these statements one by one.
I'm going to use a process of elimination here.
The point is that if we can exhaust all the ways that a generic requirement could be
carried out, and then we can exclude the
required and the forbidden, then we're left with an option.
Let me explain that further.
Statement number one.
Either all specifics that require a generic are required or they are forbidden or they are
permitted.
These exhaust all possibilities.
Number two, all specifics cannot be forbidden.
This would forbid the generic requirement itself.
Number three,
Statement number three all specific cannot be required This would make the generic
required impossible to follow you'd have to use a blue car a red car a car that has a dent
on the left back fender Another one that uses that has a tire that's halfway worn out with
the other three or not and every ship and variety of ship etc etc
This would be impossible to follow.
This would be a violation of the principle over in Deuteronomy 32-4 which teaches that God
is fair.
He does not require that which we cannot do.
And therefore, the truth must be that all specifics under a generic requirement are
permitted.
That is, are optional.
are judgment calls.
We should note that each occurrence of all specifics under a generic are permitted
in statements one and four is qualified with except any that the Bible forbids.
Now I go a little further here but is there any comment either of you would like to
mention on that argument?
I was just going say that this topic is good for studying because while we don't
necessarily use these terms all the time in our everyday language and course of action,
the principles still apply.
So it's good to study this so you can understand interpretation, biblical interpretation,
and be able to defend.
the truth in situation like this, you know, I kind of choked a little bit when you talked
about the different vehicles.
But if you don't understand the principle, you think, well, everything under this generic
has to be specifically required, well, then you say, well, no, that would be literally
impossible.
You couldn't do anything.
You couldn't worship God.
That would be another generic requirement.
You couldn't make a living.
First Timothy 5, 8, he that provides not for his own, especially for those of his own
household, denied the faith in his worst and an unbeliever.
You couldn't do that.
You wouldn't have time to do that.
you'd do that one, you wouldn't have time for worship, et cetera.
You wouldn't have time to go out into all the world.
And when George was describing the cars, I was thinking he was adhered to the position
that it's only the preacher that's supposed to do that.
Cause he was describing preacher cars, wasn't he?
Yes, right.
He dance all over them and stuff.
But yeah, no, it is, it is true though.
And plus they are what I like about the syllogism.
And by the way, we're not
video yet but we will be one day and we'll have all these nice pretty graphics but if you
would like some written information just feel free to email the school and we'll get that
to you fsop at fsop.net and we'll be sure to get those pdfs to you but with the with the
argument that he stated that and he's got it in some somewhat of a chart here as well but
it it includes stuff that we haven't even heard about yet
like, know, beam me up Scotty, you know, if that's if that technology is ever invented,
that would be a scriptural way, unless the Bible forbids it, to take the gospel to where
it needs to be.
that there are people on Mars who need to obey the gospel.
be one day when we put them up there, okay, but
That came up in Trump's inaugural, right?
Yeah.
So, if you find a generic requirement in the Bible that applies today, you can use this
argument to show that the generic requirement itself...
provides Bible authority for the specifics that carry it out, except any specific that the
Bible excludes.
Just replace the generic requirement, and the term generic requirement in the above
argument, with that particular generic requirement.
Could I give some examples?
So let's say for example, Hebrews 10, 23 to 24.
Let's take look at that.
Maybe someone can read that for us.
See, let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering for he is faithful to
promise and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works.
So this passage requires us to assemble together, but it does not tell us where to do the
assembling.
So some of the authorized specifics that carry out Hebrews 10, 23 to 24 would be a white
building with black trim, or a field under the oak tree, or Bill's basement at 10 a.m.
All of these are specifics that carry out the generic requirement, the umbrella authority
given to us in Hebrews 10, 23 to 24.
As we've indicated already then, Hebrews 10, 23 to 24 are from what we've already
indicated.
This passage implies authority therefore for each of the specifics that I just mentioned
that would carry this out.
And so then the Bible is not silent on church.
So I'm just going to bring that up.
And so even though the Bible doesn't explicitly say you can worship in a white house with
black trim, the Bible is not silent on it because it does tell us to assemble.
And it leaves as, to use George's terminology, the umbrella generic allows any place of
assembly that is not forbidden by the Bible.
And so any place we can.
Right, so Hebrews 10, 23 to 24 in other words implies authority for having a church
building or meeting under an oak tree or whatever.
As long as the specific that carries it out is not.
actually forbidden in the scriptures.
Another example of a generic requirement and some of the authorized specifics that carry
it out is Acts 2 verse 38 with Acts 8, 29 to 40.
This teaches us, this provides a requirement that we baptize people and over in Acts 8, 29
to 40 you see that this is done in water.
So then Acts 2, 38 with Acts 29, 40 you could put into that
upper block and call that immerse in water.
It's a requirement for the purpose of remission of sins.
And that can be done in a baptistry in a church building.
That can be done in Megan's swimming pool.
That can be done in the ocean down here at in down the road in Tampa.
There are any number of specifics that carry that out and those specifics are implied as
authorized specifics under the generic
immersed in water for the purpose of remission of sins that is taught in Acts 2.38 with
Acts 8.29 to 40.
And since we have found a passage then that implies authority for having a baptistry in a
church building, for example, then we have thereby shown that the Bible is not silent on
the use of a baptistry in a church building.
And so you mean to tell me, George, that the water doesn't have to be running in order for
us to be baptized in it scripturally?
Well, if you could show me that as a requirement in the scriptures or a prohibition that
forbids a water that's not running, then I'm going to have to appeal to these two passages
as giving me authority for using such water.
Yes, and I just say that because I was, when I first started my preaching work full-time,
that there were people that opposed baptisteries based upon the water has to be running.
And I don't know where they got that from, but...
something maybe about a living well.
Maybe, but when the eunuch said, here's water, what does hinder me?
We don't know if it's running or just a standstill pond, but it was water and he was
baptized.
I heard of some brethren down in the country of Panama who were out in the boonies and
they were trying to out in the I think eastern part of Panama and They couldn't find any
water and I said well, what do you do for baptism?
Well, what we do is we dig a hole and we find water that way and we thereby make a Pool
that's big enough for immersion
So there are all sorts of ways of carrying out the requirement of immersing in water for
the purpose of remission of sentence.
Another example of a generic requirement providing umbrella authority are
authority for the specifics that carried out is 2 Peter chapter 3 verse 18.
This teaches that we have to grow, notice the imperative there, to grow in grace and
knowledge.
So that sets up a hierarchy of a generic requirement under it.
There have to be specifics that carried it out otherwise you wouldn't be able to do that
generic requirement.
And that authorizes therefore having Sunday school.
That authorizes having a Bible study at your house.
It authorizes having a Bible lesson book.
There are any number of ways also that that authorizes as umbrella authority.
Unless you can find something that, some specific that somebody comes up with that's
forbidden, then of course that is excluded.
Another example of a generic requirement that with specifics that are authorized for
implementation would be Luke 22, 17 I submit to you that says divide the cup.
divide the cup here in this passage the Lord is instituting the Lord's Supper and uses the
imperative divide the cup and I submit to you that therefore that authorizes as a generic
requirement a number of
cups is desired, one cup, or one cup on one side and another on another side, or multiple
cups, all of this is, I believe, authorized by the generic requirement, divide the cup in
Luke 22 verse 17.
Another, Colossians 3.16.
admonish with spiritual songs.
So you can do this with a song at 10.30 a.m.
on Sunday.
You can do it with three songs between 6.45 to 7 p.m.
on Thursday.
Again, a number of different ways that can be carried out.
Carry this out and all of those are...
authorized by the generic requirement in Colossians 3.16 itself, unless again you can find
something that's been one of those specifics that the Bible excludes.
Another would be pray, pray without ceasing, 1 Thessalonians 5.17.
So that authorizes a specific way of carrying it out as a 22nd or a three-minute prayer
Wednesday evening in the church building or a 40-second prayer Tuesday morning in your
home at breakfast, for example.
These are, I think going through this reasoning shows that we have an antidote that we can
follow, a biblical antidote that we can follow.
that identifies, one way that identifies an action as an option, and when there is option,
there are grounds for rejoicing.
We now can bend, we can be unified even though we use different methods of carrying out
that option.
And serves as an antidote to what has been unfortunately some unscriptural division in the
Lord's Church.
The what you're mentioning you know, we a few minutes ago we talked about the running
water there sometimes there's some details that seem to just be incidental to a main point
in the text, you know, like running water or like meeting in an upper room and there are
times that people may make those things.
They move them from a category of optional into a requirement and some things may just,
you know, there was a river.
So that's where you want to follow the command to baptize and and there was an area in
upper room we can meet together to worship and take the Lord's Supper and those things.
You find those kind of incidental details sometimes description is careful.
We have to be careful rather to make sure we don't move them into an area of requirement
or prohibition if they don't really belong there.
this.
a very good point.
I think that's very important also to point out in that connection that, and this would be
worthy of some discussion as well, when we have an approved example in the Bible, is that?
indicating is the Bible thereby indicating that we're dealing with a required action or an
optional action or is it the case that you cannot tell just from that example.
Yeah, my first answer was you have to look at the whole context.
So that example by itself does not tell you.
Because there some examples that we do find in the Bible that are maybe good in that
particular culture, but maybe not required across the board until Jesus comes again.
Just as an instance of this, I was confronted one time by a brother who insisted that in
order for baptism to have its biblical effect, that the one doing the baptizing had to be
a faithful Christian.
and and i said no i don't i don't believe that that we should restrict in fact he was in
contact with people in prisons and i was doing a good work at about fifty correspondence
courses going on with people in prisons and the some of these people wanted to be baptized
one in particular that i have in mind and that i had some contact with myself and this
brother
advised this prisoner not to be baptized right now because there was no faithful Christian
within the perimeter of the prison to do the baptizing.
There was a chaplain there who was, I think, maybe Eastern Orthodox, but he was not a
member of the Church of Christ.
And the brother advised the gentleman not to be baptized.
As it turned out, although this chaplain was willing to baptize him for the purpose of
remission of sins, yet the...
brother behind the correspondence courses, advise him not to yield to that, not to be
baptized.
And as, and then as time progressed, there were people that were not available to baptize
him for the purpose of remission of sins.
And so then this, and five years later I came on the scene, I had some contact with this
prisoner, who was a lifer.
He's in there for murder, but, as far as we can tell,
He was penitent, had followed the Bible plan of salvation up to but not including water
baptism and wanted to be baptized.
So I had a conversation with him.
I advised him to go ahead and be baptized.
I said the only thing that's important is what's in your mind as to why you are being
baptized, not in the mind of the one doing the baptizing.
And so we talked about that and I had some discussion and he finally was baptized into
Christ.
And I had some conversation with the brother who was insisting that you had to be baptized
by a faithful member of the church in order for the baptism to have its biblical effect.
And he said, well, where is the example for that?
Where do you have an example in the Bible of a non-Christian
doing the baptizing.
And I said, well, you're not understanding a biblical principle here.
It is not necessary, now this can be misunderstood if you don't listen to this carefully.
It's not necessary to find an approved example of an action in order for it to be
authorized by the Bible.
And that's because there are different ways that the Bible authorizes.
i don't have an example and i asked him what did you do go over did you just and uh...
mission work go over in uh...
africa whatever i think he had done some on those lines how did you get over there well by
jet plane but can you find me an example of that in the bible and then there was silence
uh...
he saw the point that uh...
it's or that uh...
by providing us with an approved example we have
The Bible thereby shows that the action is authorized, but two things here.
Number one, that's not the only way that the Bible authorizes.
It also authorizes by command, etc.
Furthermore, you can't tell, I would submit, you can't tell just from the example itself
whether this is a requirement or an option.
You'll have to go elsewhere to pin that down.
And one other thing, I may say something on this.
If in fact we have to be baptized by a faithful member, a person has to be baptized by a
faithful member of the church in order for baptism to have its biblical effect, that is in
order for God to wash away that person's sins, add that baptism, that would mean that the
one being baptized or about to be baptized would have to know
the spiritual state of the one doing the baptizing in order for that person to know that
his sins are being washed away.
Not only that, he would have to be able to trace it back to the one that baptized the one
that's baptizing him, that he was faithful, and that you'd have to be able to trace it all
the way back to the first century because if there's a break in there with a
non-Christian, a non-faithful Christian that
that baptized somebody in that chain of events, that would nullify your knowledge of that
you're finding.
So that doesn't work.
So again, an approved example is not necessary in order to authorize an action, but it is
one of the ways that the Bible authorizes an
that's very good point and plus i would add an extra step to the plan of salvation if you
had to someone baptizing
You'd have to hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized by a faithful member of the
church, step six, in order to be saved.
But where is that in the Great Commission?
He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.
Nowhere does it teach, he that believes and is baptized by a faithful member of the church
shall be saved.
You're adding that in.
A person would be adding that
add to or take away as we talked about earlier in this series.
So we appreciate your time with us today.
We went a little bit over on that one but it was well worth it and so we hope that you'll
join us next time on the Florida School of Preaching Harvester podcast.
He just gave his life a ransom number on Calvary.
On Mount Calvary, cruel Calvary.